So, I had a question. I'm currently reading the first volume of Maspero's "Histories".

At one point, he's talking about the gods presiding over specific nomes or major cities. He says that , in order to form alliances between the nomes or the regions, they wed their titular gods instead of wedding the children of the nomarchs. This forms "triads" ; alliances symbolized by the nome gods coming together, most predominantly a goddess and two gods; one as her husband and the other as their son, to assure prosperity. (you can read about this here http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19400/19400-h/19400-h.htm)

Then in the footnotes it says that a certain scholar known as Brugsch "rightly attempted to replace the triad by the Ennead", as though the concept of such local alliances was wrong in some way or that the theory had evolved. But, I don't really see how the Ennead, which seems to me to be a specific and even divinely genealogical alliance, compares to the local alliances which are artificially made to satisfy the human need for solidarity.

Is the concept of the Triads wrong? Is there a counter-argument to Maspero's theory? What exactly is the Ennead (I must be missing something)?
It seems quite logical to me as a typical religious-political governing method. But then Maspero's work is quite old, and I'm still discovering all the "important" and "reliable" egyptologists. I'll go hunting for Brugsch's theory, but until then, I was wondering if anyone here might know what's wrong, what changed, and what's right. _________________"When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."